USA - Town's fluoride-removal vote stands
MOUNT DESERT: Town's fluoride-removal vote stands
In the wake of residents' controversial decision to remove fluoride from the water supply, town officials have fielded inquiries about how to overturn the vote, Town Clerk Joelle Nolan has confirmed.
Unfortunately for those who disagree with the town's voters, state law requires a two-year waiting period following any vote on fluoride.
The statute reads: "Whenever a single community water district has disapproved fluoride, it may not vote again on the matter for a minimum period of two years." The same is true for the addition of fluoride.
"That is the current statute," said Judy Feinstein, director of the state's oral health program, a division of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "I think the reason for it is just to stop it from being an on-again-off-again sort of thing."
"I think the decision made by Mount Desert is regrettable, but we have all indications that it was conducted properly under the law," she said.
Mount Desert residents opted to remove fluoride from their water supply in a March 5 referendum following a public debate started by Paul Slack, director of the Mount Desert Water District. In his arguments against fluoridation, Slack cited a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences that details the detrimental health effects of fluoride. The report is cited frequently by those opposed to fluoridation of public water supplies to help reduce tooth decay.
Feinstein said a common misperception of the academy report is that it directly addresses community water supplies where fluoride is added. The academy did conclude that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's set fluoride maximum of four parts per million is too high to rule out bone problems and fluorosis. However, this recommendation is relevant only to communities where fluoride occurs naturally in the water supply and is harder to regulate, she said.
Water districts that add fluoride aim for between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm, the ideal range, according to the American Dental Association. The association and the CDC tout the fluoridation of water as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.
"It is fair to say that some issues deserve further investigation," Feinstein said of the academy report. The review concluded that a correlation between fluoride and bone cancer calls for further research. "Fluoride is like many other things," she said. "It continues to be evaluated as science develops."
Slack has no regrets about his campaign to eliminate fluoride from the public water supply, and he stands by his decision.
"We have to provide safe drinking water for everybody," he said. "Fluoride poses a high risk for babies if they receive too much."
- Mount Desert Islander, www.mdislander.com.
In the wake of residents' controversial decision to remove fluoride from the water supply, town officials have fielded inquiries about how to overturn the vote, Town Clerk Joelle Nolan has confirmed.
Unfortunately for those who disagree with the town's voters, state law requires a two-year waiting period following any vote on fluoride.
The statute reads: "Whenever a single community water district has disapproved fluoride, it may not vote again on the matter for a minimum period of two years." The same is true for the addition of fluoride.
"That is the current statute," said Judy Feinstein, director of the state's oral health program, a division of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "I think the reason for it is just to stop it from being an on-again-off-again sort of thing."
"I think the decision made by Mount Desert is regrettable, but we have all indications that it was conducted properly under the law," she said.
Mount Desert residents opted to remove fluoride from their water supply in a March 5 referendum following a public debate started by Paul Slack, director of the Mount Desert Water District. In his arguments against fluoridation, Slack cited a report issued by the National Academy of Sciences that details the detrimental health effects of fluoride. The report is cited frequently by those opposed to fluoridation of public water supplies to help reduce tooth decay.
Feinstein said a common misperception of the academy report is that it directly addresses community water supplies where fluoride is added. The academy did conclude that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's set fluoride maximum of four parts per million is too high to rule out bone problems and fluorosis. However, this recommendation is relevant only to communities where fluoride occurs naturally in the water supply and is harder to regulate, she said.
Water districts that add fluoride aim for between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm, the ideal range, according to the American Dental Association. The association and the CDC tout the fluoridation of water as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.
"It is fair to say that some issues deserve further investigation," Feinstein said of the academy report. The review concluded that a correlation between fluoride and bone cancer calls for further research. "Fluoride is like many other things," she said. "It continues to be evaluated as science develops."
Slack has no regrets about his campaign to eliminate fluoride from the public water supply, and he stands by his decision.
"We have to provide safe drinking water for everybody," he said. "Fluoride poses a high risk for babies if they receive too much."
- Mount Desert Islander, www.mdislander.com.
posted by Bill at
9:20 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home